I cover the video game industry, write about gamers, and review video games.
You can follow me on Twitter and hit me up there if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about.
Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies. This does not influence my coverage or reviews of these games.
I do not own stock in any of the companies I cover. I do not back any Kickstarter projects related to video games. I do not fund anyone in the industry on Patreon.

Steam Removes Game 'Order Of War: Challenge' From User Libraries

It was bound to happen sooner or later. Valve’s online gaming distribution website Steam has removed what appears to be the very first game from user libraries. Many games have been removed from the Steam store, but have remained in user libraries. Individuals have had games removed for various reasons as well, but this appears to be the first game, in its entirety, removed from every user library.

Square Enix shut down the servers for Order of War: Challenge and instead of merely removing the game from the storefront, Valve erased its existence altogether. For customers who purchased—and I’m tempted to write this as “purchased”—it’s like a game that never was.

To be fair, with the servers shutdown, the game would have been impossible to play anyways. This isn’t simply because it’s an online-only game. In fact, Order of War: Challenge has 18 single-player missions as well. But due to always-online DRM, even the single-player portion of the game requires the servers to be up and running.

So here we have the confluence of two modern phenomena in the video game industry. First, there’s the hazy concept of digital ownership—or “ownership” as the case may be. Second, the growing peril of always-online requirements for games that have single-player components.

When the two collide we get a very clear picture of just how transitory your ownership of a video game truly is.

It’s actually quite fitting that on Steam we have a “library” of games as opposed to, say, a digital shelf. The games purchased online have no physical copy and are, in effect, simply leased to us rather than actually owned by us. So if Steam decides to pull a game from our libraries, that’s well within Valve’s right (and all of this is, of course, in the Terms of Service, or TOS.)

But this somewhat risky proposition is hedged against by the fact that Valve has absolutely no reason to pull games from our libraries whatsoever. The incentives to keep games in user libraries, on the other hand, are clear: it keeps customers happy and paying.

Always-online DRM throws a wrench into the gears. Here Steam, or any other distribution outfit, has no choice in the matter. They could, theoretically, leave games broken by server shutdowns in user libraries, if only out of principle. But the games wouldn’t function and customers would still have no way to play them. At least by pulling the game there is some way for customers to theoretically request a refund.

So while digital ownership, or the lack thereof, is a real concern that hasn’t been properly addressed in our legal system yet, the much bigger story here, to me at least, is the problem with always-online DRM. The two are related to a degree. If Valve went out of business tomorrow, what would happen to all of our games? If Steam shuts down, will we have some way to access our libraries? Would we simply lose our collection?

Many concerns over always-online DRM come down to server reliability—see the launch of SimCity 5 or Diablo III—and what happens to players who have poor internet connections (they don’t play.)

But by far the biggest concern is what happens to these games when the lights go out. A game with no online requirement can be played ad infinitum. A game that requires accessing a server that can be shut down has no such guarantee of perpetuity.

When a game is solely online multiplayer (think MMOs like World of Warcraft) this is understood going in. We all know that if Blizzard shuts down WoW we won’t be able to play it anymore. There’s an agreement and an understanding from the get-go that at some point this may come to an end, and we’ll stop paying our subscription.

But with games that include single-player components, that implicit agreement doesn’t exist. Nor should it.

None of this is unique to video games, of course. We’ve already seen Amazon pull books from Kindle libraries. Should Amazon or Barnes & Noble go out of business, what would happen to our Kindle and Nook libraries? I suspect they’d remain intact since some other firm would likely buy up the Kindle business, but who knows?

Order of War: Challenge was not a hugely popular title, obviously, and Square Enix chose to no longer spend money supporting it. Valve pulled the game from user libraries since it no longer functioned as the product people paid for. It all makes sense from a financial standpoint, but the uncomfortable fact remains that some people paid for a product and then one day woke up and found that it was gone.

There’s something unsettling about that. I imagine purchasing a TV. It works fine for a couple years and then one night the manufacturer breaks into my home and sabotages it, and then a couple of hours later the retailer who sold it to me breaks in and hauls it off. I wake up in the morning and my TV is gone. A note explaining that the TV only functioned so long as the manufacturer wanted it to is sitting on the entertainment stand. Thank you for enjoying our product, we hope you go out right now and buy another one.

A television set is obviously a much larger and very different type of purchase, but I consider both the TV and the game to be my property. I’m wrong to do that, of course. The game isn’t and never was my property. The question is whether or not it ought to be. Whether or not consumers are selling themselves short by agreeing to this state of affairs.

Update: It appears that contrary to what I first believed, the single-player portion of the game—Order of War without the “Challenge”—is still available on Steam, and only the multi-player content has been removed.

That’s good, and changes some of the details in the above post. But my larger point still stands: Single-player games that have always-online DRM attached are inherently at the mercy of the servers’ longevity, having an internet connection to begin with, etc. That’s a problem that complicates the notion of digital ownership.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

While I agree with the general concerns about ownership, and I’m sure eventually the Law will figure out where these new technologies lie, I am also becoming more accepting of the changes of software from a good to a service.

As games become more sophisticated and require more online content–especially these new games coming out this year like Titanfall and Destiny, there’s going to be a blurring of the lines between this type of content, where the concept of Single-Player and Multi-player blur. In this case, I would suggest people start thinking of the game they are playing as a service, one that can last for years, but then have a expiration date–so becomes an event you experience instead of one you replay.

The key thing to me is that games are not the same as books or movies–how many times are people going to replay the same game over and over. I can understand they will probably have multiple playthroughs, but there are many factors that get in the way.

1) Rising technology (new and faster graphics)–new tech makes older games look primitive. It’s getting better so games from 5 years ago don’t look that much different, but games from the early days look really primitive. It makes replaying them less appealing. I enjoyed games like Thief: The Dark Project, and I have good memories, but I don’t want to play the game again because it looks rather primitive.

2) Changing technology platforms (the hardware)–how realistic is it to play old games. At some point, the game’s content will become worthless unless somebody ports it to a new platform. PC gamers have been lucky that the “Wintel” standard has been around since the Late 1980s, but with the rise of alternate platforms, what good would a steam collection be if suddenly it was hard to find a PC platform. So, eventually, the stuff you bought you’d either have to purchase again. Console users have experienced this, but I suspect a PC user will encounter this at some point.

So, you have these two forces against you–and the concept of ownership doesn’t mean as much when you face the fact that even though you own something it might be unplayable, and also if you can play it, it might not look as appealing as your nostalgic memories might work. The only benefit to full ownership is being able to resell the game, but how many people are going to resell a 20 year old videogame?

That’s why I think people need to see a game as paying for a movie ticket or a broadway ticket or cable TV–a cost that is a service, and while you may get a longer life than a 2 hour movie or a month of cable TV–eventually the experience will end.

You’re looking at games from too narrow a perspective, namely graphics. It’s like reasoning that old movies and TV shows are worthless because special effects and color are used now.

Story and game mechanics are also good reasons why people revisit older games. To appreciate what games were at the time, to remember how you felt back then, to see how far they’ve come.

Rereleases of games aren’t necessary to keep being able to play them, just keep the old systems. Even old PC games have people finding work arounds so newer PCs can play old games. Finding old games for the PC isn’t that hard either especially with GOG.

Single player games shouldn’t have an expiration date. I’d argue that online only games shouldn’t be taken away from the users either, at least on PC, there are chances of unofficial servers being set up so people can still enjoy the content.

Playing games off as a service you don’t own is the biggest con of the game’s industry. When I finish a book I don’t throw it into a fire or break the DVD after watching a movie. It should be unacceptable when game companies try to throw away your games for you even if it does no longer work without their servers.

“As games become more sophisticated and require more online content” “I would suggest people start thinking of the game they are playing as a service, one that can last for years, but then have a expiration date”

No, I will not buy into the industry’s bullshit. None of this “online content” is a requirement when it comes to single player. If single player is dependent on “online content” that turns it into a service, then it was the choice of the developer/publisher to put it there. A choice that I will not abide by. If the big publishers want to try to eliminate the concept of game ownership and replace it with buying a license to use a service platform, fine, but I will never buy anything from them again.

When I buy the sophisticated and non-primitive Witcher 3 next year, it will be a game I proudly own, and access to this game cannot be revoked on a whim. No outside party will impose an expiration date. Luckily the future won’t be as bleak as your prediction makes it sound, since there’s no sign that drm-free developers like CD Projekt Red will be going away any time soon.

To rebut the statement, how many people watch movies from before their childhood. For instance, how often do you see a B&W movie on a major channel outside of It’s a Wonderful Life at Christmas Time, outside of Turner Classic Movies.

I’m not being shallow, I can still enjoy the old games but I find as I get older I prefer the better games, see where we can go, instead of playing the same game with the same plot and the 1990s graphics. My time is limited and I’d rather experience something cutting edge, at least when it comes to video games. I don’t have much desire to spend 40-50 hours playing a game from my past.

I understand that single-player games are different–If there’s no need for an online component, then let them continue. But I find it very likely you will not be able to play games from 20+ years ago outside of a re-release, which means you won’t be able to play it. And I think we’ll be getting more games which blend single and multiplayer content in a way that it will be more akin to a multiplayer-only experience.

“A choice that I will not abide by. If the big publishers want to try to eliminate the concept of game ownership and replace it with buying a license to use a service platform, fine, but I will never buy anything from them again.”

And there will be people who are okay with this. Like I said, people are likely to play Titanfall and Destiny and other games and not care. If people care enough about it, these games won’t sell.

“When I buy the sophisticated and non-primitive Witcher 3 next year, it will be a game I proudly own, and access to this game cannot be revoked on a whim. No outside party will impose an expiration date.”

You forget that TW3 is a licensed property that WILL expire. At some point, TW3 might be forced to stop selling any copies–maybe 5-10 years from now. They won’t be able to take away your copy, but perhaps when the PC dies, you can’t get the game again, because legally it can’t exist.

But will you even care about TW3 20 years from now–I mean care enough to keep your box or want to play it again.

And to be fair, I do see this as a concern, and I hope the Law makes definite rulings on these issues, something that balances the concerns of customers vs. owners.

But my other point is this–playing games is trivial compared to a whole number of social ills. I wish people who played games would get as passionate and worried about the NSA or other more concerning issues instead of whether or not they can play or still own a 20 year old videogame. When people are more concerned about DRM than government tracking, there’s something wrong with the world.

“They won’t be able to take away your copy, but perhaps when the PC dies, you can’t get the game again, because legally it can’t exist.”

I specifically used the language I did when referring to the game’s “expiration” to avoid possibilities like hardware deterioration or the disposal of my computer due to obsolescence. Even if a time comes when that copy I will inevitably store on my external hard drive becomes unusable, I don’t think that changes the fact that during the time when it is playable, that copy will be mine.

“But will you even care about TW3 20 years from now”

How should I know? Deus Ex is 13 years old, and not only do I play it at least once a year, I still consider it the best game ever made. Shit happens, man.

There is a market for old games, and also a market for old games who’s graphics get updated – either by fans of that particular game or on occasion by whomever currently owns the rights to that game. Just as importantly for a business retro-gaming is ‘free’ money in the bank. Sure, old games don’t sell for anything like as much as a new title. But then it doesn’t cost anything to develop or release them.

As for PC gaming, emulator programs are available that will allow you to run old programs on the newest operating systems. And there is no reason to think that such programs will not be around for a long long time. Nor is there any reason to think that such programs will not make the jump to tablets (assuming they haven’t already). In fact given the lower hardware requirements of older games this would be a very good thing, as that 20 year old game you have should be able to be run on a modern tablet without trouble. This is good for customers, good for tablet manufacturers and good for developers – who as I noted will be getting money for games that they didn’t have to spend anything to create.

This aspect of games is often overlooked, especially it seems by games companies. Who are so obsessed with the (rather minor) possibility of piracy in the short term and getting total control they are just saving up problems for themselves in the long run.

As to ownership of digital games, maybe you should consider this – Would you be happy if Amazon decided to delete songs from your playlist?

This isn’t about reselling copies, this is about the game you already have still working. If I still have The Witcher 3 on a system that can run it then I expect the game to work 20 years from now.

What the NSA is doing is awful, but don’t try to deflect from this issue by invoking that one.

“To rebut the statement, how many people watch movies from before their childhood. For instance, how often do you see a B&W movie on a major channel outside of It’s a Wonderful Life at Christmas Time, outside of Turner Classic Movies.”

What point were you trying to make with that post? I can appreciate that you only like the latest and greatest, I just want it to work when it’s no longer on the cutting edge, so if people choose to, they can still play those games or watch those black and white movies.

Yes, I’ve heard of it. But not everybody is into that. I personally don’t get nostalgic for old Pac Man level games, for instance, and I have no personal like for retro-games using pixels when in this day and age you can use vector-based graphics.

“Sure, old games don’t sell for anything like as much as a new title. But then it doesn’t cost anything to develop or release them.”

Actually it does–somebody has to maintain the storefront, somebody has to pay taxes, license fees have to be paid, and somebody has to work on the emulator software–which is not perfect and requires constant work. Sometimes it’s not worth the low amount of profit it might give. Plus, there may be problems porting a game to a tablet if it depends on controls.

That’s why I said that at some point, you are more likely to pay for the same game twice than to go through the work of setting up an emulator package. In that case, being obsessed about ownership may mean little if you’re just going to have to purchase it again.

“As to ownership of digital games, maybe you should consider this – Would you be happy if Amazon decided to delete songs from your playlist?”

I wouldn’t be happy, but I think this leads to another analogy. I purchase some music, but I also pay for streaming music, which I will never get to keep. I think newer gamers may not be that obsessed about owning their games a few decades from now. Anybody on the console generations (instead of PC) realizes that their console will be obsolete someday.

“This isn’t about reselling copies, this is about the game you already have still working. If I still have The Witcher 3 on a system that can run it then I expect the game to work 20 years from now.”

Unless the PC becomes so marginalized that it’s hard to find the hardware.

Don’t laugh at this. This happens with so many other platforms–old Macs, commodore computers, apple II/III, Atari ST, and countless consoles, from the Atari 2600 to the PS2. PC users have been a bit spoiled because of the relative stability of the platform over the years, but there’s some hints that this platform will be less stable in the next decade. I suspect sometime within the next 10-15 years, non Windows based computer devices will erode this platform.

“What point were you trying to make with that post? I can appreciate that you only like the latest and greatest, I just want it to work when it’s no longer on the cutting edge, so if people choose to, they can still play those games or watch those black and white movies.”

I don’t just only like the latest and greatest, but I am pointing out that for most people, gaming is not as artistic-based as books or movies. I think there’s a shorter windows on how far back new gamers (who have no built-in nostalgia for the old games) are willing to go.

And I agree that if a game is good it can and should be preserved. I’m just being realistic that you are very likely to have to purchase the content again–people did this when CDs replaced cassettes and vinyl, or when DVDs replaced VHS. In all those cases, ownership doesn’t matter because all you have in the end is something you can’t use.

The issues of tech isn’t what we’re talking about. If you have what’s needed to run the game then it should still work and not be a hunk of junk due to DRM or an always online requirement for single player games.

Just like how cassettes and vinyl records are still usable as long as you have the players for them.

Will I care about TW3 in 20+ years time? Probably, I mean hell, I still go back and play Streetrod 1 & 2 every now and again (I was born in 1987 and SR1 came out in 1989!) I still go back and play BattleTech: The Crescent Hawk’s Inception (1989) I still play ZORK (1980)

John, I’m sure pretty much all your points have been debunked already, but just to recap:

1. Yes, I definitely watch movies from before I was born. Same goes to books and music. It is not like everything ages badly, same goes to games too. At this very moment I am playing Icewind Dale (a 14 years old PC RPG) and enjoying it a lot, even feeling it is superior to most modern RPGs (like Dragon Age 2, yuck!).

2. You said that console owners have already accepted that their games will expire at some point. That is untrue too. I am still playing some of my old Playstation and PS2 classics on my PS2 unit that still works, the games haven’t been expired because the game publishers didn’t feel like keeping some DRM authentication server up for them. The main point is: they don’t get to decide how long I play the games I’ve purchased, I have the control.

Yes, my PS2 unit will die at some point in the future and maybe I can’t find a working one to replace it. You know what happens then? I’ll continue playing those same games on emulators running on PC. I’m actually already doing that for the most of my Playstation games, ePSX emulator works great (even better than the real thing), and PS2 emulation is quite good nowadays too.

But even if I wasn’t able to do that, it is irrelevant to the point at hand, that is, the publisher deciding for me for how long I can play the single-player game I have purchased. The technical obstacles are a different matter from that.

3. That brings us to the next point. Emulation and virtual machines make sure that people can continue enjoying their old classic games, as long as the DRM or copy protection in the original game does not prevent that. There are no more Amiga gaming computers, but WinUAE emulator runs Amiga games great, just like DOSBox runs old MS-DOS games great even on non-PC systems.

4. Yes, many classic games will get a HD treatment and remakes, so you can rebuy the games. But it is your choice, you are not obliged to rebuy them, you should still be able play the old game too if you choose. Like, I haven’t bought all those old PSOne or PS2 games as remakes for PS3, as I don’t even own PS3, and the original games still work fine. So I choose to play the originals instead, without repaying for the same games again.

Same as with music, I don’t rebuy my Pink Floyd music collection every 5 years because I think they become obsolete, especially if I already have that music in DRM-free format, like in good quality mp3 files.

5. Last but not least, your point that there are more important matters than DRM to worry about is silly. It is the old argument that as long as there are starving children in Africa, we are not supposed to worry or discuss about anything else. Even about NSA spying on us, as long as there is even one starving child, right?

I don’t see my opinions and observations being “debunked”, like they are totally false. This is just a discussion of different opinions.

1) Yes, people do watch movies, tv, and other things from the earlier days–when they can be preserved. Some don’t, and I think in the original case, you should not expect all things to be preserved.

2) You don’t have control in all cases. A person may still have their 8-track tapes or C64 computer, but in the LONG RUN, someday your PS2 will break and nobody will be able to repair it. You have control, but I’ll bet for 95% of the population, they’ll eventually convert their collections in some manner. You may have some control, but nobody can overcome entropy.

3) Emulation only works if somebody works on it, and if enough people care to worry about it. Don’t assume it will always be an option. It would be nice if it was an option, but there are realistic

4) Everybody has a choice, but again, the majority of the population will likely purchase stuff again unless it can easily be converted. Again, you assume that the hardware tech will remain stable enough, but it hasn’t. It’s gotten better but nothing’s perfect.

5) It may be silly and an old argument, but there’s a practical point to it. I’m trying to bring a perspective to things. Games are a hobby, the least important thing to worry about. My guess is that most of the population doesn’t care or worry if an old video game will still be playable 50 years from now, and that if the item is something that people care about it will stay in print, depending or not if the game enters the culture as a “classic”. And realistically speaking, just because the world’s changed from a physical to a digital format, it is more likely that being able to continually access something will require a new purchase, be it 10 years in the future or 50 years. (Games are trickier than books and movies because of the complex interaction and requirement of player input).

In short my whole point was to offer some reflection on ownership in the longest term possible–no entertainment media is as important or an “investment” like a car, house, or even a computer. I think in some way game players have taken an antagonistic approach to the organizations they purchase games from–when in many cases there are practical complexities involved.

And there’s a certain horder mentality among gamers now–people gorging on steam sales and owning games while never playing them. I’m trying to explain that, while this is important, people should also not expect to own something in perpetuity since there’s a practical “shelf-life” to technology, and it’s probably unrealistic to expect to play, say, Baldur’s Gate 30 years from now without shelling out extra money to do so.

My argument is, basically, is this really as big a deal as people think? If new games are designed with, say, planned obsolescence by being multi-player experiences that require on-line servers, something to be experienced in their era by only a single generation…would that be so bad?

At no point before have you focused only on multiplayer online only games. Next time think about the point you want to make, as you just did, and back it up instead of talking about how games like The Witcher 3 would need to be updated to play on future tech or how you can’t play Thief The Dark Project anymore because of graphics.

No, it’s not so bad for them to make multiplayer games that require online servers, we already have lots of those games, it is bad, as they’ve done here, to remove it from gamer’s collections without their say.

I keep shifting back to DRM on single player games because that’s the focus of this article, and until you just specified with multiplayer online only games, seemed to be what you were talking about.

I’ve actually presented several perspectives–sadly of all the things “called out” the original statement I made wasn’t. I’ve made suggestions that perhaps in the future all software will be a subscription service instead of a good, for instance, and that the concept of single-player games might change.

I guess I just try to provide an alternate perspective, as I am not as knee-jerk anti-DRM as most hardcore gamers seem to be, as I try to understand both sides.

Please quote where you showed an understanding of the other side. As all I’ve seen, and yes I read all your comments here, was support of subscription services.

If you want to give a balanced argument try listing the pros and cons of both sides and reasons why an expiration could be a good thing for games. Movies and festivals being limited doesn’t automatically equate to being a good thing for games. How would making a game be an event cause it to be better than something you play?

Trying to paint the people who disagree with you as unbalanced ‘knee-jerk anti-DRM’ hoarders, doesn’t help your argument. Ad hominem attacks and talking yourself up only weaken your stance.

“I am not as knee-jerk anti-DRM as most hardcore gamers seem to be, as I try to understand both sides.”

You don’t think we ever thought about these issues? Maybe we reject it based on principle; a principle formed by our experience as consumers in the gaming industry. You seem too eager to bend over for companies who would erode your rights as a consumer.

Retro-Gaming does not just apply to 40 year old games, but also games that are around 10 years old – who’s graphics are fine unless you happen to be playing on a screen the size of a small car.

People don’t just buy retro-games for nostalgia’s sake, although given that the average age of a gamer in western countries is around 35 that is certainly a factor for many. The fact is that such games tend to be a LOT cheaper than newer titles, can be played on just about any PC without major issues – which allows someone to use an older machine as a gaming platform – and in my experience also tend to offer a lot more in the way of depth – or at least playing time. Some also, not unreasonably, make the point that older games tend to be a lot harder than newer games, which appeals to those who want a challenge.

Emulator programs are very usually made by programmers in their spare time, rather than as commercial products. As such they are totally free, and when buying older games from places such as GOG are packaged as part of the installation program.

The same often goes for graphical upgrades, which for very popular games tend to be fan made rather than made by developers.

Developers provide a product, they don’t run the stores that sell those products. (Except for EA, and some MMO’s such as DC Online who have to employ people to keep an eye on the servers anyway.)

As I said before, the developer/title holder is effectively making ‘free’ money by selling older games. No development costs, no marketing costs and no stress if a game just doesn’t sell well as there is no expectations or need for the game to sell well.

Your comment about console players misses three points;

First off you ignore or missed the outrage from console players when they discovered that neither the XB1 or PS4 would be backwards compatible. Gamers were NOT happy about that, pointing out that their games collections were going to be useless.

Second is that like many you treat PC and Console gamers as if they were two totally different species. They are not. The fact is that many, MANY console owners ALSO own a PC or laptop. This tends to get forgotten by everyone when they start talking about consoles and PC’s.

Last of all you totally ignore that PC’s will continue to evolve over the next ten to fifteen years. And the nature of PC’s means that you can keep pace with those changes gradually by upgrading your machine or reusing the peripherals – I’ve bought only two monitors in the last 15 years while going through at least four computers. Consoles though…well if you open up your two year old XBox or Playstation neither company will want to talk to you and you can’t just buy new components gradually. So you either end up spending whatever those companies decide to charge* to upgrade your old console or you have to get a new one.

(*Current charges start with at least one limb of your choice for basic service and repairs, and the soul of your offspring for the full package**)

(**You can’t offer your own soul, as you lost that as soon as you opened the packaging.)

The argument that ‘the PC is dead as a gaming platform’ has been uttered since the early 1990′s. In the modern context it is rather clear that ‘PC’ gaming is anything but dead – after all Microsoft just spent a LOT of time and money creating the XB1. Which when you look at it is basically a PC you can’t upgrade.

“Trying to paint the people who disagree with you as unbalanced ‘knee-jerk anti-DRM’ hoarders, doesn’t help your argument. Ad hominem attacks and talking yourself up only weaken your stance.”

I did not attack a specific person, but I do find on-line discussion on gaming to have a strong one-sided anti-DRM viewpoint, with a more extremist view of eliminating it completely, which I think is unrealistic. You’re interpreting this observation as me dismissing your arguments. I do not need to make my own arguments “balanced”, probably because another side or an alternate perspective is under-represented.

“Emulator programs are very usually made by programmers in their spare time, rather than as commercial products. As such they are totally free, and when buying older games from places such as GOG are packaged as part of the installation program.”

True, but as games get more complex, I predict creating emulators is going to get harder and harder to do. There may be middleware involved too that is protected by IP rights. Emulators have limitations–ask people who run virtual environments like Wine. Will this continue–yes, but depending on what changes happen to the medium and the hardware, it could end up being a lot more complicated. What happens if a new type of controller is created? Or that computers all end up requiring some haptic input.

“As I said before, the developer/title holder is effectively making ‘free’ money by selling older games. No development costs, no marketing costs and no stress if a game just doesn’t sell well as there is no expectations or need for the game to sell well.”

You forget possible opportunity costs and administrative costs–for instance, somebody needs to record sales if there’s third party rights and royalties (for instance, somebody at WoTC is likely to need to be paid from sales of BG on both GOG and the new enhanced editions). As such, things like this may prevent some games from being released like this.

“The argument that ‘the PC is dead as a gaming platform’ has been uttered since the early 1990′s. In the modern context it is rather clear that ‘PC’ gaming is anything but dead – after all Microsoft just spent a LOT of time and money creating the XB1. Which when you look at it is basically a PC you can’t upgrade.”

I do realize that lots of pundits make predictions about the PC that have not come true, and too many people predict the death of a platform too quickly. However, in many cases, the PC as started by IBM was a very unique concept–a computer made of component parts, and by accident (since IBM would never have done this if they knew what would result), it was an open platform not beholden to a single vendor. And windows made it a stable platform to do business tasks on.

However, nothing lasts forever. I don’t believe the gaming industry is the primary force in the PC industry. The players are weaker now, and Microsoft has had significant erosion. At the point when there are good alternatives for businesses on the PC, you’ll start to see platform fragmentation, which may result in some alternative. My bet would be on a phone or tablet becoming the primary computing device for the consumer, which means that gamers might have to adjust at some point–if the hardware market changes, it may become harder to build a “gaming rig”.

Microsoft’s has a vested interest in keeping the PC platform alive, so I can’t say the X1 is a good indication of what the long-term future will bring.

And I should say I don’t want this to happen too fast. I’m personally committed to my platform (PC), I don’t own a console, and I hate controller. But I keep my options open, and I’ll expect some sort of paradigm change in the next several years.

You think it’s fine because you attacked a group of people instead of one person? Attacking a group and attacking a person results in the same thing, a weakening of your stance.

You’re the one that said you try to understand both sides; going with a more “balanced” argument is a way to show that you do. At no point did I say you needed to do it, but if you’re not willing to show that you tried to understand both sides, then don’t bring it up as it’s just lip service at that point.

“You’re interpreting this observation as me dismissing your arguments.” When did I indicate that I felt you were dismissing my arguments? Other than right now as I repeat the question I made before that you ignored, just worded a bit different.

I still didn’t attack anybody, unless you think one pointed statement against the more militant DRM haters.

It’s not so much that there’s a positive to a limited service, but rather, it may be a different experience. And it might be that most computer gaming is fated to be something that is experienced in the now rather than something that is like a book that is passed down from generation to generation.

This “I am not as knee-jerk anti-DRM as most hardcore gamers seem to be, as I try to understand both sides.” is an attack, as you are trying to paint the majority of anti-DRM hardcore gamers as people that fly off the handle against DRM because they haven’t thought anything through. Adding on that you tried to “understand both sides” is a way of lifting yourself up so you can more easily look down on this ‘militant DRM haters’.

Calling something a ‘pointed statement’ doesn’t automatically rule it out of being an attack.

When the side without DRM comes with many positives (play whenever you want, game doesn’t have an expiration date, can let friends borrow the game, etc.), while the alternative takes away those positives, and the only ok thing you give us back as a reason is that it would be a ‘different experience’, it should come as no surprise when people continue to be against it.

One of the first multiplayer focused games I played was Unreal Tournament, still has people playing online and has components that allow you to play offline (bots). Future proofing like this would enable them to still focus on online services while retaining at least some of the original value down the road.

I’m sorry, but you are being way oversensitive to my comments. There are a lot of people out there who have a more extreme stance–won’t buy any game without DRM, pressure people to sell on GOG, threaten to pirate a game if a CEO complains about piracy and defends DRM, bomb sites like Metacritic just because of DRM, etc. If you interpret that as an attack, well, just stop being so sensitive to an alternate opinion.

I think the point I was trying to make is not that DRM doesn’t cause problems, but that I believe most of the general public won’t care unless there’s a real major F-up. The point is, people play games to have fun, and if the fun doesn’t last “for eternity”, it might not be that big a deal to worry about.

A simple solution would be for the DRM to be removed from the game by Square-ENIX. Since they’re no longer supporting the game, and this lack of support therefore makes the game technically unplayable (read: worthless), then it should either have the DRM removed, or be released to the Open Source community for any players still interested in the game. There’s no sense in having DRM for content that is broken.

So, there is no big deal… what is the purpose of a game in your steam list if it is shut down and unplayable. You knew this could happen going into is, the authenticationmodel chosen by the developers is the real issue.

„So if Steam decides to pull a game from our libraries, that’s well within Valve’s right (and all of this is, of course, in the Terms of Service, or TOS.)“

Not necessarily. If national or international law says otherwise Valve’s ToS are null and void. And this might be a potential problem for Valve in the future, because slowly but steadily the national legal systems are catching on. And at least in the countries of the EU it seems that most courts are of the opinion that you own a digital product. If this legal opinion solidifies, especially EU-wide Valve might have to make quite a few (expensive) changes to their software and business model. GoG.com for example seems to be in a much better position concerning these risks. But of course they are based in Poland therefore probably much more familiar with the legal standards in Europe.

Steam would not pull out of Europe – the total population of Europe is some 711 million, that of North America 529 million. So they’d loose around 60% of their trade overnight – which would be the end of the company.

I’m using it as an example, but instead of Europe, replace with an individual country, say if France or Poland decided to enforce a law, it could be easier for Valve to pull out of a few countries than comply.